If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 7:09am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**George**: *on* 10/3/12 at 1:30am UTC, wrote Dear Shan Gao, Your paper is interesting. I am going to apprised your...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/2/12 at 13:52pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

**Juan Ramón González Álvarez**: *on* 9/23/12 at 11:52am UTC, wrote Dear Shan Gao, I found your analysis of the wave function very interesting...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 9/21/12 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Shan, In the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of...

**Hoang Hai**: *on* 9/19/12 at 15:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

**Hou Ying Yau**: *on* 9/13/12 at 21:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Shan, Your arguments that "the modulus square of the wave function...

**ABRAHAM**: *on* 8/23/12 at 6:06am UTC, wrote Dear Shan Gao, May I suggest a new quantum geometry that will permit you...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Joe Fisher**: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Joe Fisher**: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Eckard Blumschein**: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..."
*in* Will A.I. Take Over...

**Robert Rise**: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..."
*in* Time in Physics & Entropy...

**Steve Dufourny**: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..."
*in* Will A.I. Take Over...

**Steve Dufourny**: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM

October 24, 2019

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: Meaning of the Wave Function by Shan Gao [refresh]

TOPIC: Meaning of the Wave Function by Shan Gao [refresh]

According to the standard probability interpretation, the wave function is a probability amplitude, and its modulus square gives the probability density of finding particles in certain positions in space. In this essay, we show that this central assumption of quantum mechanics may have an ontological extension. It is argued that microscopic particles such as electrons are indeed particles, but their motion is not continuous but discontinuous and random. On this view, the modulus square of the wave function not only gives the probability density of the particles being found in certain locations, but also gives the probability density of the particles being there. In other words, the wave function can be regarded as a representation of the state of random discontinuous motion of particles, and at a deeper level, it may represent the dispositional property of the particles that determines their random discontinuous motion.

Shan Gao is a PhD student at the University of Sydney under the supervision of Dean Rickles and Huw Price. His research is focused on the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Dear Shan Gao,

Your paper is very interesting. I discussed the meaning of the wave function in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

My paper is discussing the meaning of the wave function according to the unification of quantum theory and relativity theory. I found in order to perform this unification, SRT must be modified according to the concepts, principles and laws of quantum. I hope to read my paper in order to discuss.

report post as inappropriate

Your paper is very interesting. I discussed the meaning of the wave function in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

My paper is discussing the meaning of the wave function according to the unification of quantum theory and relativity theory. I found in order to perform this unification, SRT must be modified according to the concepts, principles and laws of quantum. I hope to read my paper in order to discuss.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan Gao, their views on the meaning of both qualitative and quantitative, of the wave function is interesting, very well explained. Are necessary to deepen the apparent "solved" problems of quantum mechanics, because there are serious inconsistencies to be resolved to have a more realistic understanding of the physical world

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Azzam and Angel,

Thanks for your comments on my paper. I will read your papers with interest. I am sympathy with the view that SR should be modified in order to be unified with QM concerning quantum non-locality.

Best,

Shan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comments on my paper. I will read your papers with interest. I am sympathy with the view that SR should be modified in order to be unified with QM concerning quantum non-locality.

Best,

Shan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan,

The crisis of physics concepts, principles, and laws that there are two theories describing two worlds, the macro, and the micro, they are the relativity and quantum. what I did in my graduation research in 1996 I formulated new theory that unifying the two theories at the same concepts, principles and laws, depending on the latest experimental results of both. I still remember the seminar of discussing my research in 1996, when I told my doctors, it is possible measuring speeds greater than light speed in vacuum for particles or electromagnetic waves without violation of Lorentz transformation or causality. At that time my doctors told me it is difficult to proof that at this time. The experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement are considered good proof for what I predicted. Existing a particle in two states at the same time is good proof for my modified relativity. OPERA, ICARUS, and SN1987a, Cherenkov radiation and The Pioneer anomaly are good proof for my modified relativity. The definition of the quantum field theory to the vacuum energy is good proof for my theory. the discovering of Higgs boson is is good proof for my theory. I have many to say about my theory, and I hope to discuss it depending on the unsolved problems in physics related to quantum and relativity and depending on the latest experimental results and how can be solved all of these problems according to the modified relativity according to quantum.

report post as inappropriate

The crisis of physics concepts, principles, and laws that there are two theories describing two worlds, the macro, and the micro, they are the relativity and quantum. what I did in my graduation research in 1996 I formulated new theory that unifying the two theories at the same concepts, principles and laws, depending on the latest experimental results of both. I still remember the seminar of discussing my research in 1996, when I told my doctors, it is possible measuring speeds greater than light speed in vacuum for particles or electromagnetic waves without violation of Lorentz transformation or causality. At that time my doctors told me it is difficult to proof that at this time. The experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement are considered good proof for what I predicted. Existing a particle in two states at the same time is good proof for my modified relativity. OPERA, ICARUS, and SN1987a, Cherenkov radiation and The Pioneer anomaly are good proof for my modified relativity. The definition of the quantum field theory to the vacuum energy is good proof for my theory. the discovering of Higgs boson is is good proof for my theory. I have many to say about my theory, and I hope to discuss it depending on the unsolved problems in physics related to quantum and relativity and depending on the latest experimental results and how can be solved all of these problems according to the modified relativity according to quantum.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan Gao,

I enjoyed your essay very much, particularly your discussion of real or effective charge distributions associated with the wave function. I have had similar concerns about "distributed charge" but you have given me some new ideas along this line. Thank you.

We agree that particles are real and that the wave function does actually describe the probability of finding the real particle, as is typically determined by 'impulse' measurement. I was happy to see you mention the PBR analysis that concludes that an "information only" wave function cannot reproduce quantum mechanics predictions, as well as recent Aharonov-type measurements of Lundeen and others.

So we conceptually agree that the particle is real, but it is not clear to me how your wave function is real, versus 'information-only'. In other words, I understand the physical reality of your particle, but the physical reality of your wave function escapes me.

For a perspective that agrees with 'real particles' but differs in some aspects, I invite you to read my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. You have clarified some aspects of 'charge distribution' for me. I hope my essay triggers some ideas for you.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay very much, particularly your discussion of real or effective charge distributions associated with the wave function. I have had similar concerns about "distributed charge" but you have given me some new ideas along this line. Thank you.

We agree that particles are real and that the wave function does actually describe the probability of finding the real particle, as is typically determined by 'impulse' measurement. I was happy to see you mention the PBR analysis that concludes that an "information only" wave function cannot reproduce quantum mechanics predictions, as well as recent Aharonov-type measurements of Lundeen and others.

So we conceptually agree that the particle is real, but it is not clear to me how your wave function is real, versus 'information-only'. In other words, I understand the physical reality of your particle, but the physical reality of your wave function escapes me.

For a perspective that agrees with 'real particles' but differs in some aspects, I invite you to read my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. You have clarified some aspects of 'charge distribution' for me. I hope my essay triggers some ideas for you.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your interest in and comments on my paper. On my view, the wave function is real in the sense that it represents one property of the particles that determines their motion. I will read your papers with interest.

Best,

Shan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your interest in and comments on my paper. On my view, the wave function is real in the sense that it represents one property of the particles that determines their motion. I will read your papers with interest.

Best,

Shan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan Gao

Congratulations for posting your ideas here - I am sure you will get many interesting and thought-provoking responses.

Although my work and intuitions are mostly geometrical and qualitative, I have come to the conclusion in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory that probability as the interpretation of the wave function is just a mathematical interpretation and has no relation to 'reality'. I attribute the probabilistic interpretation to Einstein's point-photon concept: How can such a point exist in a Schrodinger wave? Hence probability. A similar realistic interpretation can be attributed to the wave field of an electron (see attached!).

I hate the thought that all this conflicts with your thesis ideas and hence will be a distraction to you. But please read my fqxi essay here, and also Eric Reiter's fqxi essay where he experimentally proves the photon is not a particle- his work is very important and should be read and digested by serious physicists.

Good luck in your studies.

Vladimir

attachments: 3_Particledoubleslit_.jpeg

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations for posting your ideas here - I am sure you will get many interesting and thought-provoking responses.

Although my work and intuitions are mostly geometrical and qualitative, I have come to the conclusion in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory that probability as the interpretation of the wave function is just a mathematical interpretation and has no relation to 'reality'. I attribute the probabilistic interpretation to Einstein's point-photon concept: How can such a point exist in a Schrodinger wave? Hence probability. A similar realistic interpretation can be attributed to the wave field of an electron (see attached!).

I hate the thought that all this conflicts with your thesis ideas and hence will be a distraction to you. But please read my fqxi essay here, and also Eric Reiter's fqxi essay where he experimentally proves the photon is not a particle- his work is very important and should be read and digested by serious physicists.

Good luck in your studies.

Vladimir

attachments: 3_Particledoubleslit_.jpeg

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for your comments on my paper. I will read your essay with interest. Good luck!

Best,

Shan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comments on my paper. I will read your essay with interest. Good luck!

Best,

Shan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan Gao,

If three points are in a horizontal plane in fixed distances between them and if a fourth point is at variable distances from these three points vertical to that plane, is representing a tetrahedron; then the locality of the fourth point is described by the probability amplitude in analogy with the wave function of particles. When the distances between the fourth point and other points are representational as strings, the wave mechanics by string dynamics can be quantized, in that I think, the charge density is proportional to the tensor products of the strings.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

If three points are in a horizontal plane in fixed distances between them and if a fourth point is at variable distances from these three points vertical to that plane, is representing a tetrahedron; then the locality of the fourth point is described by the probability amplitude in analogy with the wave function of particles. When the distances between the fourth point and other points are representational as strings, the wave mechanics by string dynamics can be quantized, in that I think, the charge density is proportional to the tensor products of the strings.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jayakar,

Thanks for your interesting comments. I will certainly read your essay. Good luck!

Best,

Shan

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your interesting comments. I will certainly read your essay. Good luck!

Best,

Shan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman and Shan Gao,

Edwin is right. Superposition of wave function associated with different objects leads us to observe them. In PicoPhysics this issue is integrated with action at distance and concept of exchange particle as the mode of interaction between objects. PicoPhysics view on the subject (Though discussed at stage 3 – only stage 1 is available at...

view entire post

Edwin is right. Superposition of wave function associated with different objects leads us to observe them. In PicoPhysics this issue is integrated with action at distance and concept of exchange particle as the mode of interaction between objects. PicoPhysics view on the subject (Though discussed at stage 3 – only stage 1 is available at...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

It is not clear to me that your statements about superposition have much to do with the ideas in my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, or very much to do with Shan Gao's essay either. Have you read our essays?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Sorry, the Microsoft equation did not show-up. Below is an attempt to re-introduce the same,

K_{d} = K_{1} + iK_{2}

wave function = (K_{1}^{2} + K_{2}^{2})e^{ia}

where

tan (a) = K_{1} / K_{2}

Positive sign still not coming.

report post as inappropriate

K

wave function = (K

where

tan (a) = K

Positive sign still not coming.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan Gao,

May I suggest a new quantum geometry that will permit you to view the probabilistic energy distributions of Wave-functions a physical reality?

As outlined in my submission - Tetryonics the charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter - if you utilise EQUILATERAL geometries for energy quanta you will soon see a physical geometry emerge that provides for all of the current quantum mysteries.

Wave-functions, 'square' energy distributions and Amplitude-Probabilities are all easily explained along with the greatest outstanding mystery Wave~Particle duality. [see attached]

Importantly, all of the current Math can easily be translated from circular geometries to equilateral geometries without changing the results physically measured [ie the current Math is based on a misconception of the true geometry it reflects].

attachments: Figure_38.10__WaveParticle_Probabilities_800x600.jpg, Figure_38.01__Wave_Particle_Mechanics_800x600.jpg

report post as inappropriate

May I suggest a new quantum geometry that will permit you to view the probabilistic energy distributions of Wave-functions a physical reality?

As outlined in my submission - Tetryonics the charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter - if you utilise EQUILATERAL geometries for energy quanta you will soon see a physical geometry emerge that provides for all of the current quantum mysteries.

Wave-functions, 'square' energy distributions and Amplitude-Probabilities are all easily explained along with the greatest outstanding mystery Wave~Particle duality. [see attached]

Importantly, all of the current Math can easily be translated from circular geometries to equilateral geometries without changing the results physically measured [ie the current Math is based on a misconception of the true geometry it reflects].

attachments: Figure_38.10__WaveParticle_Probabilities_800x600.jpg, Figure_38.01__Wave_Particle_Mechanics_800x600.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan,

Your arguments that "the modulus square of the wave function not only gives the probability density of the particles being found in certain locations, but also gives the probability density of the particles being there....... the wave function can be regarded as a representation of the state of random discontinuous motion of particles" is very well presented. I share your idea.

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Your arguments that "the modulus square of the wave function not only gives the probability density of the particles being found in certain locations, but also gives the probability density of the particles being there....... the wave function can be regarded as a representation of the state of random discontinuous motion of particles" is very well presented. I share your idea.

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan,

In the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0 the electron in atom has form a disk cloud. Then it seems that the Wave Function gives concentration of electron substance in the cloud. What do you think about it?

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

In the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0 the electron in atom has form a disk cloud. Then it seems that the Wave Function gives concentration of electron substance in the cloud. What do you think about it?

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan Gao,

I found your analysis of the wave function very interesting and with many similarities with my own work. I devoted part of my essay to explain that the wavefunction is only an approximation to the real quantum state of the system.

I prepared this recent paper Positive Definite Phase Space Quantum Mechanics, where I offer details on the Liouvillian formulation of quantum mechanics, which I mentioned in my essay. You may find therein a generalization and improvement of the Bohm pilot wave theory, where the quantum motion of particles is traced to stochastic, random microscopic motion.

I completely agree on "that microscopic particles such as electrons are indeed particles". My formulation eliminates wave-particle duality and describes particle motion directly in probabilistic terms. In fact, my formulation also applies to quantum systems whose state is not described by any wavefunction (e.g., open systems).

Regards

report post as inappropriate

I found your analysis of the wave function very interesting and with many similarities with my own work. I devoted part of my essay to explain that the wavefunction is only an approximation to the real quantum state of the system.

I prepared this recent paper Positive Definite Phase Space Quantum Mechanics, where I offer details on the Liouvillian formulation of quantum mechanics, which I mentioned in my essay. You may find therein a generalization and improvement of the Bohm pilot wave theory, where the quantum motion of particles is traced to stochastic, random microscopic motion.

I completely agree on "that microscopic particles such as electrons are indeed particles". My formulation eliminates wave-particle duality and describes particle motion directly in probabilistic terms. In fact, my formulation also applies to quantum systems whose state is not described by any wavefunction (e.g., open systems).

Regards

report post as inappropriate

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shan Gao,

Your paper is interesting. I am going to apprised your essay as hight. About meaning of the wave function I have mine approach that may be interested you. I hope you will find time to check it and apprise.

link essay

Regards,

report post as inappropriate

Your paper is interesting. I am going to apprised your essay as hight. About meaning of the wave function I have mine approach that may be interested you. I hope you will find time to check it and apprise.

link essay

Regards,

report post as inappropriate

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is and was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have of points. After it anyone give you of points so you have of points and is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: or or In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points then the participant`s rating was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.